In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle-class consumers. And taxing the rich, to make investments, that make the middle class grow and thrive, is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle-class, the poor, and the rich. Thank you.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
TED talk on inequality given by Nick Hanauer
Here is the much-talked-about TED talk on inequality given by Nick
Hanauer. We (TED) are posting it here to promote public discussion on an
important issue. For more background on this, see this blog post from
TED Curator Chris Anderson: http://tedchris.posterous.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle-class consumers. And taxing the rich, to make investments, that make the middle class grow and thrive, is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle-class, the poor, and the rich. Thank you."
ReplyDeleteNo, thank you for proving you're an idiot. In the first place we have a corporatist economy and in the second place consumers are not producers.
You want to look at a capitalist economy, there is only one place to look, it is the second largest economy in the world, System D.
Investment? Right. Look at the effing tax money wasted on all those idiotic green companies that Obama gave billions to that went down the cloaca.
Or how about Bush investing in peace bombs and democracy missiles that destroy shit. Great investment, eh?
Or how about Bush investing in
This entire video is toro caca.
orlin sellers
Sometimes I think you just hate everybody.
DeleteMikeb said, Sometimes I think you just hate everybody.
DeleteI don't 'hate' anyone. But I do detest stupidity which is exactly what calling this a capitalist economy is. It is a corporatist system.
But, if this dud wants to do something why doesn't he write checks to people who may be struggling.
How many lower middle class people would immediately become middle class if the government quit stealing their money through withholding and income taxes? How many working poor would immediately go to lower middle class?
Instead, Bush & Obama give a trillion dollars to stimulate their buddies, why didn't they give that money to these people instead of taxing them to pay for a failed stimulus?
Really, does anyone think it is a good idea to give more money to bankrupt spendaholics?
orlin sellers
He makes good sense. Raise the top marginal rates, and spend it in the following order:
ReplyDelete1. Paying down the debt
2. Maintaining and building infrastructure
3. Create a rational healthcare system
Once we've done a lot of #1, we can add more and more into research and development.
Greg, do I understand you correctly, tax more and then spend, spend, spend?
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Tax more, yes, but pay down the debt as a first priority. Default is unacceptable. The other two are essential services. But paying down the debt will give us much more freedom to lower taxes and to spend money intelligently.
DeleteIn other words, continue the unsustainable welfare/warfare state by raising taxes?
DeleteI am actually flabbergasted that you can't see we need to cut government spending.
But, I suggest you read this and get back to me.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/27-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-national-debt
orlin sellers
Are you advocating for a default? If not, my item #1 is a necessary part of any budget plan. We do need to cut spending, and one major area is the military. With a rational healthcare system, Medicaid and Medicare could be eliminated as well. That's what I'm talking about. But a modern society does require some government spending.
DeleteGreg, glad to hear you are for cutting spending.
DeleteHowever, back to the video, the idea that consumers create jobs is total nonsense. Were consumers clamoring for iphones before Steve Jobs came up with that innovation? Were people with horse and buggies clamoring for cars before Ford came up with a way to make them affordable and mass produce them?
As usual, the wealth redistributors have it bass ackwards.
orlin sellers
Contrary to both Smith and Marx, I see wealth or value as coming from more than one source. Certainly, without people buying products, no business could operate. When consumers have more disposable income, they can spend more. But that has a limit, as Hanauer said. What he's arguing is for increasing the number of middle class consumers, not by confiscatory taxation, but by raising the top rates some and then using that money in intelligent ways. I share in your skepticism about the latter being possible, but in theory, it can be done.
DeleteGreg, remember that Luxury Tax?
DeleteHere's what happened:
When Congress imposed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles, Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. What actually happened is laid out in a Heartland Institute blog post by Edmund Contoski titled "Economically illiterate Obama, re: Corporate Jets" (7/12/2011).
Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.
Back then, Congress told us that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft and jewelry would raise $31 million in revenue a year. Instead, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing and 1,470 in the aircraft industry, in addition to the thousands destroyed in the yacht industry. Those job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. The net effect of the luxury tax was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means Congress' projection was off by $38.6 million. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the value of jobs lost in just the first six months of the luxury tax was $159.6 million.
Walter Williams
orlin sellers
That's a tax targeting one specific thing. An increase in income taxes would not have the same effect.
DeleteThe fact is that we owe a lot of money. We also have a number of governmental functions that are necessary for a modern society. Spending cuts alone will not balance the budget.
Greg says, That's a tax targeting one specific thing. An increase in income taxes would not have the same effect.
DeleteI would argue that that particular tax is targeting one specific group of taxpayers, the wealthy. That is the same group you want to increase all taxes on.
I'm curious, what would your position be if any wealthy gun purchaser would be taxed at a higher rate on guns and ammo than say you or me. Let's say a 1,000% tax. And any licensing/registration fee would be 5,000% higher than me. I mean, hell, why not, they can afford it.
I am surprised that you support class warfare.
orlin sellers
I don't support class warfare. What I want is a balanced budget and a functioning government. To get to those, we have to pay for them.
DeleteThere are sales taxes on guns and ammunition, and everyone pays the same rate of sales taxes. The rates that you suggest wouldn't be aimed at raising revenue. They would be an attempt to restrict gun sales.
If, on principle, you don't support income taxes, that's a valid position, but I don't see how we achieve a modern society without including that source of revenue.
Greg,
Delete1.) The tax on weapons and ammo would only apply to the wealthy so it wouldn't be a gun control measure.
2.) You keep on saying a 'modern society' which I believe you mean is the welfare/warfare state.
3.) If you can find in the Constitution where it says government is responsible for healthcare, education, welfare, charity, and propping up corporatism, etc., please direct me to that section and article.
orlin sellers
1. An income tax is one of the amendments to the Constitution.
Delete2. The preamble lists the general welfare as one of the reasons for forming our society.
3. The Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.
On your other points:
1. The background checks take long enough as it is without adding an income bracket check.
2. I mean a society that maintains a healthy environment, assures the basic needs of its citizens, and promotes development and trade. Those can be done by direct programs or by creating the general sphere of activity to allow them to happen on their own.
I'm not talking about the kind of top-down control that E.N. and others favor, and I don't mean handouts. But no, I'm not an anarchist. I see a role for government to play.
Greg said, " I mean a society that maintains a healthy environment, assures the basic needs of its citizens, and promotes development and trade."
DeleteThe most basic needs of everyone are food, clothing and shelter. You believe the government is responsible for supplying the most basic needs?
The government does not promote development and trade it creates scarcity.
Two other points:
1.) The general welfare clause and its original intent has been perverted. James Madison, the author of the document clearly stated, as president, what was and was not intended.
2.) The regulation of interstate commerce was meant to make more good readily available. As Ron Paul explains it:
[ The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state-- a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.]
A centralized government is a top-down government.
orlin sellers
Food and clothing we can provide ourselves, for the most part, without any help. Affordable housing is a major problem for many in this country. Healthcare costs are outrageous. It's not the government's job to provide all of that, but certainly society has a role in assuring that everyone is able to obtain basic needs.
DeleteAs for development, we're using the product of a government project to carry on this discussion, namely, the Internet. GPS devices use government satellites. Transportation companies use government roads. The list goes on.
Greg said, " It's not the government's job to provide all of that, but certainly society has a role in assuring that everyone is able to obtain basic needs."
DeleteWhy?
Charity is a vice not a virtue.
I'm surprised you believe the myth about government developing the internet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html
Roads? I'm curious, if there were 50,000 deaths a year on private roads what do you think the outcry would be? Or that freeways become parking lots at rush hour, or that road construction takes place during peak travel times.
I guess some people aren't self-reliant, need the government to take care of them, and need to be told what to do and think.
orlin sellers
orlon:
ReplyDeleteYou're quite possibly the stupidest fucking person that's ever commented here, and that's saying a lot--none of it good.
You swallow the shit that's spewed by the likes of Rushbo and the other talkin'shitheads and accept, uncritically, their pronouncements.
You're too fucking stupid to have an argument with, that's it.
okay.
DeleteI expect to never hear from you again. My eternal thanks.
orlin sellers
That's one of the best explanations of the "tax the rich" thing that I've ever heard.
DeleteAnd wet sidewalks cause rain.
Deleteorlin sellers